WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Update on review and recommend effective training materials for search committees at WEDA
institutions; materials should cover topics such as how and why committees should attend to diversity
issues, the management of unconscious bias, complicity, and cultural sensitivity. ................................. 1
2. Update on review and recommend vacancy announcement wording that a) applies to a broad
based educational background so that potential applicants do not feel they are "ruled out", and b)
that indicates a commitment to diversity that goes beyond standard Civil Rights Act statements. ........ 1
Basic statement for the vacancy announcement: .................................................................................... 1
Demonstrated skills: ................................................................................................................................. 2
Other desirable skills:................................................................................................................................ 2
3. Update on review and recommend language that incorporates expectations regarding
professional development in working with diverse audiences and diversity issues into position
descriptions and performance appraisal documents and procedures. ..................................................... 2
4. Update on work with Washington State University to determine whether the Cultural
Competency “Navigating Difference” Training currently offered by WSU can be developed into an online course. Recommend a course of action to WEDA. ............................................................................ 2
5. Update on review and recommend training in leading diversity efforts for mid and higher level
Extension administrators who make final hiring decisions in the West. .................................................. 2
Appendix A: Affirmative Search Advocacy Training Proposal ...................................................................... 3
WSU Extension Navigating Difference Training ........................................................................................ 3
Cultural Awareness Module Skill Set .................................................................................................... 3
Cultural Understanding Module Skill Set .............................................................................................. 4
Cultural Knowledge Module Skill Set .................................................................................................... 4
Cultural Interaction Module Skill Set .................................................................................................... 4
Cultural Sensitivity Module Skill Set ..................................................................................................... 4
OSU Search Advocate Training ................................................................................................................. 4
Proposal .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective One ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective Two ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective Three – Establish, manage, and evaluate a support system for search advocacy trainees . 7
Measurable Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 7
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page i
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Estimated Cost of the Pilot Test ................................................................................................................ 8
Financial Commitment from Participating Institutions ............................................................................ 8
Appendix B: Vacancy Announcements and Position Descriptions ............................................................ 10
Vacancy Announcements........................................................................................................................ 10
Position Descriptions .............................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix C: Performance Appraisal Documentation and Procedures ...................................................... 11
Working with Diverse Audiences and Diversity Issues ........................................................................... 11
Extension Leaders ................................................................................................................................... 11
Extension Faculty and Staff ..................................................................................................................... 11
Extension Audiences ............................................................................................................................... 12
Performance Appraisal Documents and Procedures .............................................................................. 12
Performance Appraisal Documents ........................................................................................................ 12
Performance Appraisal Procedures ........................................................................................................ 12
Peer Institutions ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix D: Interim Report to Directors - November, 2009 ..................................................................... 12
Interim Report Appendix a: Affirmative Search Advocacy Training Proposal ........................................... 16
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Objective One ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Objective Two ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Objective Three ................................................................................................................................... 18
Measurable Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 19
Pilot Test Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Interim Report Appendix b: Vacancy Announcements.............................................................................. 20
Diversity Statements - Key words/phrases summary ............................................................................. 20
Institutional Background - Key words/phrases summary ....................................................................... 20
Desirable Candidate Characteristics - Key words/phrases summary ..................................................... 21
Minimum Qualifications – Desirable parameters - Key words/phrases summary ................................. 21
Interim Report Appendix c: Performance Appraisal Documentation and Procedures ............................. 22
Working with Diverse Audiences and Diversity Issues: .......................................................................... 22
Position Descriptions: ............................................................................................................................. 22
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page ii
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Performance Appraisal Documents and Procedures: ............................................................................. 22
Oregon State University ...................................................................................................................... 23
Colorado State University ................................................................................................................... 23
Washington State University .............................................................................................................. 23
North Dakota State University ............................................................................................................ 24
Michigan State University ................................................................................................................... 24
University of California........................................................................................................................ 25
University of Tennessee ...................................................................................................................... 25
Cornell University ................................................................................................................................ 25
Interim Report Appendix d: WEDA Navigating Difference Distance Delivery Proposal ............................. 26
Situation: ................................................................................................................................................. 26
Inputs: ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
Outputs: .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Outcomes: ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Interim Report Appendix e: Cultural Competencies for Washington State University Extension.............. 27
Core Principle: ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Key Definitions: ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Diversity: ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Culture: ............................................................................................................................................... 27
Cultural competence:.......................................................................................................................... 27
Culturally competent programs and services: .................................................................................... 27
Cultural Competencies for Extension Professionals ............................................................................... 27
References: ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page iii
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Executive Summary
WEDA asked the Diversity Catalyst Team to address the following items.
1.
Update on review and recommend effective training materials for search committees at WEDA
institutions; materials should cover topics such as how and why committees should attend to diversity
issues, the management of unconscious bias, complicity, and cultural sensitivity.
Two diversity curricula have been developed in the west that we highly recommend to the Western
Extension Directors, the WSU Extension Navigating Difference Cultural Competency training and
the OSU Office of Affirmative Action Search Advocacy training.

We recommend that these curricula be integrated into a unified training program for
Extension faculty and staff that can be delivered using blended teaching strategies (face to
face instruction, individual asynchronous distance learning, facilitated small group exercises,
and synchronous distance interaction between trainees and content providers).

In order to accomplish this, we need financial commitments from several Extension
organizations to purchase of the training program once it is successfully designed and pilot
tested. With financial commitments in hand, we propose that the initial costs of development
and pilot testing be divided equitably between WSU and OSU Extension.
A proposal is included in this report, as Appendix A.
2.
Update on review and recommend vacancy announcement wording that a) applies to a broad based
educational background so that potential applicants do not feel they are "ruled out", and b) that
indicates a commitment to diversity that goes beyond standard Civil Rights Act statements.
Key words from Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Hawaii, Wyoming, California, Montana, Arizona, New
Mexico and Oregon were compiled in five categories: institutional background, minimum
qualifications and/or desirable parameters, desirable candidate characteristics, diversity statements,
efforts to attract broad based applicant pools, and educational background.
A recommended vacancy announcement with wording that a) applies to a broad based educational
background so that potential applicants do not feel they are "ruled out", and b) that indicates a
commitment to diversity that goes beyond standard Civil Rights Act statements follows, along with
a list of demonstrated skills and other desirable skills that can be used in hiring procedures.
Basic statement for the vacancy announcement: The successful candidate has
demonstrated and/or is willing to implement outreach efforts to ensure nondiscrimination in
program identification and delivery and will use all reasonable efforts to promote and encourage
participation of under-served groups. The candidate will have positive work experience and/or
significant familiarity with multi-cultural and a variety of socioeconomic audiences; an interest in
working with people from diverse backgrounds, a commitment to the principles of diversity; an
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 1
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
understanding of the land-grant mission; and an appreciation for economically and ethnically
diverse rural and urban populations.
Demonstrated skills:





Works well with diverse individuals;
Shows through a program and work portfolio a commitment to promoting and enhancing
diversity;
Is skilled in understanding different ethnic and socioeconomic audiences;
Demonstrates commitment to diverse voices in program prioritization, planning,
implementation and evaluation;
Engenders trust and respect among program participants and co-workers.
Other desirable skills:


Has an experiential knowledge of Hispanic and/or other appropriate ethnic cultures;
Has the ability to communicate in Spanish (or other appropriate languages)-orally/written.
Additional information on vacancy announcements and position descriptions is included in this
report as Appendix B.
3.
Update on review and recommend language that incorporates expectations regarding professional
development in working with diverse audiences and diversity issues into position descriptions and
performance appraisal documents and procedures.
Report: Performance Appraisal Documentation and Procedures is included as Appendix C.
4.
Update on work with Washington State University to determine whether the Cultural Competency
“Navigating Difference” Training currently offered by WSU can be developed into an on-line course.
Recommend a course of action to WEDA.
The Navigating Difference curriculum developed by WSU Extension has combined with OSU’s
Search Advocacy Training, and the proposal to WEDA is included in this report as Appendix A.
5.
Update on review and recommend training in leading diversity efforts for mid and higher level
Extension administrators who make final hiring decisions in the West.
WEDA DCT recommends working with North Carolina State Personal and Organizational
Development (POD) Center and Dr. Mitch Owen.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 2
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Appendix A:
Affirmative Search Advocacy Training Proposal
By Dan McGrath, Oregon State University
Two diversity curricula have been developed in the west that we highly recommend to the Western
Extension Directors, the WSU Extension Navigating Difference Cultural Competency training and the
OSU Office of Affirmative Action Search Advocacy training.

We recommend that these curricula be integrated into a unified training program for Extension
faculty and staff that can be delivered using blended teaching strategies (face to face
instruction, individual asynchronous distance learning, facilitated small group exercises, and
synchronous distance interaction between trainees and content providers).

In order to accomplish this, we need financial commitments from several Extension
organizations to purchase of the training program once it is successfully designed and pilot
tested. With financial commitments in hand, we propose that the initial costs of development
and pilot testing be divided equitably between WSU and OSU Extension.
WSU Extension Navigating Difference Training
Navigating Difference is a skill based cultural competency training developed by Washington State
University Extension designed to enhance the ability of Extension educators and staff to work with
diverse audiences. The overarching goals for the training are to assist participants:
• Become more aware of their own personal and organizational cultures
• Examine how their personal and organizational cultures affect our ability to work across
difference in both negative and positive ways
• Build skills to increase competencies as we work with others who are different from us
The Navigating Difference training is designed using key adult education theory and practice that create
a safe and welcoming environment for all learners. The training is “hands on”. The training exercises
respect and support individual learning styles. Participants’ life experiences are viewed as an important
source of knowledge.
Navigating Difference is presented in five training modules. Each module is two to three hours long and
currently is delivered in a face to face format. The entire curriculum can be presented over three days.
Individual modules can be delivered in half day workshops over a period of several months.
Cultural Awareness Module Skill Set
 Recognize his/her culture(s), including Extension culture.
 Explore personal and cultural values, biases, prejudices and views.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 3
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010


Identify similarities and differences among cultures.
Identify ways in which culture shapes beliefs, practices, and values.
Cultural Understanding Module Skill Set
 Understand the developmental nature of cultural competencies.
 Describe issues and concerns which arise when values, beliefs, and practices differ from
those of the dominant culture.
 Recognize ways culture affects participation in extension programs and services.
Cultural Knowledge Module Skill Set
 Develop familiarity with specific cultures, especially the ways in which they differ from
one’s own.
 Use conceptual and theoretical models for understanding human culture.
 Identify appropriate cultural guides and build productive relationships with them.
Cultural Interaction Module Skill Set
 Recognize factors impacting successful intercultural communication.
 Use concepts and theories of intercultural communication.
 Manage intercultural conflicts effectively.
 Interact productively and seek input and guidance from cultural partners.
 Form new programmatic partnerships across intercultural difference.
Cultural Sensitivity Module Skill Set
 Recognize the impact of privilege, inequality and oppression in daily contexts.
 Identify historical and sociological influences on specific cultural interactions.
WSU Extension has developed and pilot tested a train-the-trainer workshop for Navigating difference
and we recommend that this be incorporated into the blended delivery of this curriculum.
OSU Search Advocate Training
The OSU Search Advocate training was developed by the OSU Office of Affirmative Action and Equal
Opportunity (Anne Gillies, Jennifer Almquist, Roni Sue, and Angelo Gomez). The training is designed for
individuals who plan to serve on faculty and staff search committees. Search Advocates learn to support
search committees in avoiding unconscious, unintentional biases in the search process, and bring
multiple strategies to advance diversity and affirmative action principles at each stage of the
search/selection process. The OSU Search Advocate Training is presented in two modules.


Part I of the Affirmative Action Search Advocate program introduces the concept of cognitive
bias, the potential of unconscious biases to effect the search, and opportunities to promote
equity and diversity at each stage of the search process
Part II of the Affirmative Action Search Advocate program further explores potential biases and
opportunities to promote diversity at each stage of the search process.
Each module is three hours long and currently is delivered in a face to face format in either a one or two
day format. The curriculum is conveyed by assigned reading, lecture plus dialogue, and a limited number
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 4
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
of individual and small group exercises. Search Advocate training was pilot tested in 2008 and offered to
several academic units on the OSU campus since then. Lessons learned from two years of experience
with search advocates serving on search committees include:






Recognizing and managing unconscious bias during faculty and staff searches requires significant
experience. However, individuals may only serve on two or three search committees per
decade. It is difficult for them to accumulate the required experience to become effective in
their role as search advocate.
Search advocates need to be prepared to manage resistance from other committee members.
Regardless of the merits of search advocacy, committee members may resist attempts to slow
down or further complicate the search process. Committee members may become defensive as
they become aware of the unintentional consequences of unconscious behaviors.
There are institutional barriers to search advocacy that need to be recognized and managed.
These institutional barriers are often beyond the scope of responsibility of search advocates to
resolve. Institutional commitment to search advocacy is needed.
The Search advocate training alone is insufficient to prepare an individual to serve as a search
advocate. Trainees need ongoing support and mentoring from affirmative action professionals.
Affirmative action professionals are fully employed. They have limited resources for the
recruitment, training, and management of volunteer search advocates.
At this time there is little institutional reward or recognition for serving on a search committee
much less serving as an affirmative action search advocate.
We recommend that the OSU Search Advocate training be integrated into the Navigating Difference
Curriculum. As we move forward with the refinement and delivery of these curricula, we need to be
mindful of the need for ongoing support and mentoring. We recommend that the establishment and
maintenance of a Search Advocacy Community of Practice be part of the development strategy for the
integrated curriculum.
The WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team recommends that the western states cooperate to develop, pilot
test, and then deliver the Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training to Extension organizations in
the western states and beyond. We recommend that in designing and delivering this curriculum, we
take full advantage of the Diversity Catalyst Teams associated with the Change Agent States Projects
that are active in many of the western states and beyond.
Development and delivery of the Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training to internal Extension
audiences using blended teaching strategies will benefit our organizations in several ways. It will allow
us to strengthen our ability to work across states and regions as a unified Extension educational system.
It will allow us to gain confidence in our ability to use blended delivery strategies in a safe experimental
learning environment. We can later apply our blended deliver skills to this and other curricula designed
for our clientele, including other agencies, organizations, and institutions of higher education.
This developmental process will require two to three years. The timing of this initiative is important. In
five to ten years, the majority of our faculty and staff in the baby boom generation will retire. The
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 5
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training will prepare our organizations to welcome the next
generation of Outreach and Engagement scholars and professionals.
Proposal
Objective One – Conduct a preliminary market survey to determine the potential demand for a
Navigating Difference/Search Advocate Training delivered with blended methods to Extension
institutions in the western states.
Twenty five Extension organizations throughout the United States were polled regarding search
advocacy training. They indicated that, although management of unconscious bias is often included as a
component of search committee training, more in-depth training is needed. Nearly all respondents
expressed interest in search advocacy training if it becomes available.
We believe that there is a market for Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training as long as it is cost
effective. Delivery of the curriculum using blended strategy may allow us to keep the cost down.
Questions remain whether the curriculum can be delivered effectively using distance learning strategies.
During this pilot project, we will conduct a preliminary market study in the western states to determine,
1) which Extension institutions might be interested in utilizing the training, 2) how much they might be
willing to pay for such a course, 3) solicit specific “pledges to purchase” if a satisfactory training is
developed, and 4) solicitation of WSU and OSU Extension to share the initial cost of design and pilot
testing.
The willingness of the Extension organizations in the western states to enter into this collaboration and
make a significant and equitable financial commitment to the project will be our first “proof of concept”
and market test for the Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy curriculum.
Objective Two – Develop, pilot test, and evaluate a Navigating Difference/Search Advocate training
that uses a blend of asynchronous and synchronous web-based and face to face teaching strategies
The WEDA Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy pilot project will involve Extension campus and
county based faculty from Oregon and Washington. Affirmative action professionals, Extension diversity
specialists, and distance education specialists from both states will work together to integrate and adapt
the WSU Navigating Difference and OSU Search Advocate training curricula into modules using “best
practices” for face to face plus on-line asynchronous and synchronous delivery.
Step One – Participating states would, if they have not already done so, establish a Diversity Training
team and designate a team coordinator.
Step Two - WSU/OSU Trainers visit a participating state in person for four days of training for the local
Training Team. Local affirmative action professionals, Extension diversity specialists, and distance
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 6
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
education specialists from the participating institution would be recruited to participate in the on-site
training.
Step Three – WSU/OSU Trainers visit the state again a second time for a three day train-the-trainers
seminar for the local Training Team. Local affirmative action professionals, Extension diversity
specialists, and distance education specialists from the participating institution would be recruited to
participate in the on-site training.
Step Four – Training Team Members in on and off campus recruit small groups of faculty and staff (6-12
people) from their units to take the integrated Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training.

Local groups would hold a face to face orientation meeting facilitated by their local Training
team member prior to the beginning of the training program.
Step Five – Over a period of one year, the Training Team members would host quarterly day-long
training sessions for their small group. The lessons would be delivered using blended strategies.
 Reading assignments, reading discussions, recorded presentations, and written interaction
between trainees and content specialists before, between, and after training workshops would
be accomplished using best practices for asynchronous distance learning.
 On the four training days using synchronous distance learning technologies, WSU/OSU content
specialists would provide lectures and interact with small groups located in several distant sites
simultaneously.
 During training days, lectures would be interspersed with individual and small group exercises
facilitated by on site dyads of Training Team members.
 Following small group exercises, distance sites would reconnect with WSU/OSU content
specialists to debrief the exercises.
Objective Three – Establish, manage, and evaluate a support system for search advocacy
trainees
During this two year pilot project, search advocate trainees in the two states will enter into a mentoring
relationship with an affirmative action professional in their own institutions. They will be invited to join
a two-state community of practice focused on affirmative action search advocacy. The interstate
community of practice will hold telephone or web-based meetings where trainees can share and process
experiences, address questions and concerns with affirmative action professionals, and receive on-going
training.

Community of practice “brown bag lunches” using synchronous web-based technologies for
audience questions and answers (Adobe connect, other)
Measurable Objectives

Working with the WSU Extension Evaluation Specialist and the OSU Survey Centers, we will
develop a series of questionnaires using a pretest, post test, and follow up survey. We will
determine and compare knowledge and skills gained, attitudes shifted, and behavior changes
associated with Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 7
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010


Working with the appropriate Institutional Review Boards, we will develop a strategy for testing
and comparing the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of trained search advocates and
untrained search committee participants.
The participating Extension audiences will achieve parity in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity
with the demographics of their states by 2025.
Estimated Cost of the Pilot Test
The intellectual leads for the WSU Navigating Difference and the OSU Search Advocate training curricula
will require four to six months leave from their other duties to work with distance learning specialist on
this project.
Course Design (contract with OSU Extended Campus)
$20,000
Project Evaluation (contracts with OSU/WSU Survey Center)
8,000
Telecommunications (during pilot testing)
5,000
Material Costs (written training materials, postage, other)
8,000
Travel (interstate prior to and during the pilot testing)
12,000
Pilot Test Total $53,000
The WSU/OSU pilot test actively guided by a consortium of Extension organizations in the West will be
completed by the end of December 2013.
Financial Commitment from Participating Institutions
In order to conduct the WSU/OSU pilot test, we need four state Extension organizations to establish
Diversity Catalyst Teams and commit to paying for their training. Catalyst team members will attend a
face-to-face four day Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training by on site WSU/OSU trainers in
the spring of 2014. Catalyst team members will attend a face-to-face three day train-the-trainer event
in the fall of 2014. The cost of the two Catalyst Team trainings will be $10,000 for WSU/OSU trainers
plus local expenses per institution.
Trained Catalyst Team members (dyads) will deliver the Navigating Difference/Search Advocacy training
in four day long workshops for an additional fifty faculty and staff during 2015. This training will be
supported by WSU/OSU content providers using blended teaching strategies (synchronous and
asynchronous distance). The cost of the four one day workshops delivered by local Catalyst Team
members supported by distance learning technologies will be $10,000 for WSU/OSU trainers plus local
expenses.
A commitment of $20,000 per institution will deliver training to 60 to 75 faculty and staff at a cost of
approximately $300 per person for WSU/OSU trainers plus local costs. WSU and OSU will bear the
developmental costs and the cost of pilot testing the program.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 8
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 9
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Appendix B:
Vacancy Announcements and Position Descriptions
There should be clear and explicit duties and expectations defined for all faculty and staff that
can be used as a standard tool for the purpose of measuring performance and ensuring equality
between employees during the annual review process.
Vacancy Announcements
Vacancy announcements should be written in a manner that opens the pool to more women,
minorities and other under-represented groups. Expanding the pool of applicants to include these
populations does not mean that the quality of the applicants will be compromised. Vacancy
announcements and position descriptions should both highlight desired characteristics such as
the ability to support a diverse and inclusive environment, experience infusing diversity into the
curriculum, etc. Requiring a potential candidate to state their prior accomplishments as well as
their intended objectives in promoting diversity will assist search committees with screening
applicants that show a strong willingness and desire to promote Extension activities to our
diverse and multicultural population of the Western region.
Position Descriptions
Position descriptions lay the foundation for a position and can assist with retaining a diverse pool
of faculty and staff. The purpose behind a well written position description is to identify, in
writing, the clear expectations of the employer so there is no question as to what is required to
succeed in a position. When done correctly, it will define performance results and expectations.
In order to incorporate expectations as they change over the course of employment it is critical
that position descriptions be updated periodically. A review of position descriptions should be
done annually in conjunction with the evaluation process. The employee should be asked to
assist with the update so that their own thoughts and opinions of where the position has changed
and where it may possibly be heading are included. This clearly defined road map to success
will assist Extension educators when it comes time for the next annual performance evaluation.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 10
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Appendix C: Performance Appraisal Documentation and Procedures
Working with Diverse Audiences and Diversity Issues
The focus of this report is on the Western region of the US which has seen tremendous growth in
minority populations. According to recent survey data, California leads all states in the number
of Latinos with New Mexico having the highest percentage of Latinos (45%). More Asians live
in California than any other state with Hawaii having the highest percentage of Asians (54%).
More Pacific Islanders and Native Americans live in California than any other state.1 With more
than one-third of the United States (US) population belonging to a minority group it is vital for
Cooperative Extension to endorse diversity as a ‘proficiency’ that employees must strive to
master in order to success within the organization.
According to the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which was expanded to include cooperative
extension, land-grant institutions were assigned with “the sending of agents into rural areas to
help bring the results of agricultural research to the end users.” Cooperative Extension extends
information and educational programs to each state’s citizens in order to meet public need at the
local level. Rural communities have been faced with uncertainty for decades as many have not
recovered from the decline in natural resource and agriculture-related jobs. These areas typically
do not attract new growth due to location or lack of a skilled workforce.
Extension Leaders
Extension leaders must be viewed as the forerunner for diversity and multiculturalism in
Extension and display genuine qualities of sensitivity and acceptance. Coaching and feedback
should be given consistently throughout the year. Communication should be two-way and
collegial rather than hierarchical to aide in open, constructive criticism and suggestions for both
the employee and the supervisor. In order to hold leaders accountable for their diversity efforts,
annual reviews for administrators should include areas of diversity such as inclusiveness,
emphasis on employee development and recruitment/retention of women, racial/ethnic minorities
and other under-represented populations.
Extension Faculty and Staff
It is critical for Extension to maintain a diverse workforce and audience in order to succeed in a
multicultural world. Extension educators who are sensitive and knowledgeable about diversity
and multiculturalism can incorporate effective strategies into planning, developing and
delivering education programs to better serve a broad and representative audience. Training
should be sought out that focuses on hidden biases and assumptions such as the Navigating
Difference: Cultural Competency Training for Extension Professionals which was developed by
Washington State University and is currently being offered in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
Faculty and staff should be encouraged to join associations that broaden their network with
under-represented populations. A good example would be a local chapter of the National
Society for Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Sciences (MANRRS). A
formal mentoring program should be introduced to new faculty for the purpose of retention. A
strong mentoring program encourages an open and welcoming organizational culture that is
sensitive to everyone’s needs and will do everything in its power to ensure success.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 11
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Extension Audiences
It is Extension’s mission and responsibility to educate the under-served and rural communities of
the state in which they function. With minority populations growing at such an accelerated rate
in the western region of the United States, it is important for Extension educators to work with
the community at large as well as the county officials to ensure that under-served audiences are
represented.
Performance Appraisal Documents and Procedures
Feedback is an extremely important piece of communication between employer and employee.
However, many times this is either overlooked due to the time involved or is inaccurate to avoid
confrontation. It is impossible for an employee to succeed without direction and feedback from
their subordinates, peers and superiors. It is very common for employees that are not performing
up to standards believe that they are doing a satisfactory job if they do not receive any negative
feedback. Even more common are the capable employees that question their own performance
because they do not receive any positive feedback from their supervisor.
Performance Appraisal Documents
Evaluations should be performed for all employees on an annual basis. An employee’s behavior
reflects directly on their supervisor however it can also have a negative impact on the
organization as a whole if not addressed appropriately. Faculty and staff should be aware of
your expectations and their performance at all times to allow them to grow and succeed in their
positions. Annual evaluations not only allow a period for formal feedback to the employee and
to clarify job expectations but also to diagnose performance problems and determine training
needs.
Performance Appraisal Procedures
In evaluating different land-grant institutions across the nation it became obvious that not
everyone includes diversity as an attribute to be evaluated. Those that provided information for
this report used various language and documentation. Most of these institutions provided their
supervisors with either a matrix or a guide to assist the supervisor and the employee with not
only how to determine the correct level of satisfaction but also to define the term “diversity”.
Peer Institutions
Several Land-grant Institutions across the nation were reviewed to examine and compare
methods used for evaluating faculty and staff within Cooperative Extension. The focus of this
review was to recommend best practices in the process and documentation of annual reviews and
to examine institutions that are at the forefront for evaluating faculty and staff on diversity
related competencies.
Appendix D:
Interim Report to Directors - November, 2009
WEDA has asked the Diversity Catalyst Team to address the following items during 2009
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 12
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
1.
Update on review and recommend effective training materials for search committees at WEDA institutions;
materials should cover topics such as how and why committees should attend to diversity issues, the
management of unconscious bias, complicity, and cultural sensitivity.
Dan & Mary Katherine contacted thirty Extension organizations to determine if they have training
materials for search committees that help committees to manage unconscious bias during the various
phases of faculty and searches. Several institutions indicated that they include a discussion of
cognitive bias as a component of the general training materials for search committees. The OSU
Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity has the most comprehensive curriculum that
specifically addresses risk and management of bias. The curriculum supports a six-hour workshop
for individuals who are trained to serve as affirmative action search advocates on search committees.
The curriculum has been pilot tested in Oregon. The findings of the pilot test are that the workshop
alone is insufficient to prepare individuals to serve as search advocates. A developmental model is
needed which might include mentoring, formation and management of a search advocacy
community of practice, and on-going education in search advocacy.
OSU would consider partnering with other states and other institutions to develop and advance this
curriculum, perhaps using blended delivery strategies, face-to- face plus distance. Dan has drafted a
proposal (Appendix a) for training and supporting Search Advocacy Training (SAT) in our Western
States. WSU is willing to participate in a pilot.
There may be WEDA policy implications in the future.
2.
Update on review and recommend vacancy announcement wording that a) applies to a broad based educational
background so that potential applicants do not feel they are "ruled out", and b) that indicates a commitment to
diversity that goes beyond standard Civil Rights Act statements.
Dallas contacted Program Leaders in the WEDA directory and members of this catalyst team to
request samples of basic faculty vacancy announcements. Vacancy announcements available on
university websites where Extension faculty positions may be advertised were also reviewed. As a
result, key words from Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Hawaii, Wyoming, California, Montana, Arizona,
New Mexico and Oregon were compiled in five categories: institutional background, minimum
qualifications and/or desirable parameters, desirable candidate characteristics, diversity statements,
efforts to attract broad based applicant pools, and educational background (Appendix b). The words
and phrases represent what might be construed as “best practices” in position-announcement
language. Further analysis of the compilation is needed to determine to what extent these words and
phrases are welcoming to potential candidates from underrepresented groups.
These summaries are a starting point for further dialogue on creating a set of recommended vacancy
announcement statements that would encourage a diverse applicant pool for Extension faculty
vacancies. In addition to basic requirements of a job, there are additional questions/considerations
that must be included in order that Extension can recruit, hire, and retain a diverse workforce.
3.
Update on review and recommend language that incorporates expectations regarding professional development
in working with diverse audiences and diversity issues into position descriptions and performance appraisal
documents and procedures.
Charity had response from eight institutions when polling for performance appraisal.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 13
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Report: Performance Appraisal Documentation and Procedures follows in Appendix c.
4.
Update on work with Washington State University to determine whether the Cultural Competency “Navigating
Difference” Training currently offered by WSU can be developed into an on-line course. Recommend a course
of action to WEDA.
The Navigating Difference curriculum developed by WSU Extension has been pilot tested in
Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. It is specifically designed to introduce Extension faculty and staff
to the fundamentals of intercultural communication and organizational development issues related
to diversity. WSU has initiated a Navigating Difference train-the-trainer program. One of the goals
of this training is to cultivate intercultural sensitivity. This requires cognitive and affective training
approaches to be effective. The WSU faculty members who developed the Navigating Difference
training program are open to using blended teaching methods to deliver the curriculum (face-to-face
plus synchronous/asynchronous distance teaching). The development of such a training program
would advance diversity goals while increasing the capacity of our organizations to deliver
programs using blended teaching methods. In those Western states where they exist, diversity
coordinators and/or a diversity catalyst team would be valuable resources in delivering the
Navigating Difference curriculum using blended teaching methods. Resources for development of
training program using best practices for blended delivery do not exist at this time in Washington
State. WSU is open to exploring how a collaboration of western states may be required to move this
project forward.
WA will be happy to develop and pilot this alternate delivery model. A draft proposal is attached as
Appendix d. Description of the training is included as Appendix e.
5.
Update on review and recommend training in leading diversity efforts for mid and higher level Extension
administrators who make final hiring decisions in the West.
Linda has reviewed various options and recommends working with North Carolina State Personal
and Organizational Development (POD) Center and Dr. Mitch Owen.
California Extension has used Dr. Owen and his POD group and has found him/them to be excellent
trainers. They understand Cooperative Extension and are able to target training to our needs. One
option is Building Successful Global Leadership Cultural Diversity Training. He is very interested
in doing training for a Western Senior Leadership Group in the area of cultural diversity. He sees it
critical that leaders in the organization understand cultural diversity and why they personally need to
embrace the concept before they prepare “their” people to move forward in this arena. His program
would be tailored to our needs and could be done in 4-6 hours. He would travel to the West. His
cost is regularly $3,000 for the training, but for Cooperative Extension he would reduce it to $1,000
plus travel expenses. Dr. Owen uses an assessment instrument that costs $75/participant. He would
prefer a class size of 25-30 but has done larger groups. Of course, with a larger group, the interactive
opportunities and activities are limited and may not be as effective. WEDA DAC has considered Dr.
Mitch Owens’ program and recommends it to WEDA.
[Engaging training from experts in the Western Region would be the WEDA DCT preference, and
WSUE had been asked to submit a proposal for a Leadership Curriculum for cultural competencies.
However, after much discussion and due to other obligations, they are not able at this time to offer a
proposal.]
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 14
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
The yearly gatherings of the WEDA and WRPLC and the Western Middle Managers Conference
could be explored as possible venues for administrative trainings in diversity leadership
WRPLC DCT has had broad discussion of the need for additional resources to move
recommendations forward for Extension and the larger markets of higher education, city and county
governments, school districts, etc. Are states willing to tap into foundation contacts to move
diversity forward? Are federal carry over/one time dollars accessible for diversity? What other
options exist or could be developed?
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 15
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Affirmative Search Advocacy
Training Proposal
Interim Report Appendix a:
By Dan McGrath, Oregon State University
Background
One of the most difficult leadership tasks before us is to prepare for the future while dealing with an
ongoing economic crisis. Institutions of higher education, including Extension, are experiencing severe
economic difficulty. Extension will survive. And, as the economy recovers in the next three to five years,
we will experience a remarkable wave of baby boomer retirements. We need to prepare now to
transform Extension while welcoming the next generation of Extension professionals. In order to
transform Extension, we need to train ourselves to recognize and manage unconscious bias during
faculty and staff searches.
During 2009, Oregon State University (OSU) Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (AAEO)
developed and pilot tested an Affirmative Action Search Advocacy Training (SAT) for search committee
members. The search advocacy curriculum focuses on management of unconscious bias during all
phases of the search process. The curriculum trains participants to evaluate and manage risk of bias
during the development of position descriptions and candidate qualifications, screening criteria,
recruitment and interview strategies, reference checking, and final evaluation. It touches on the
important subject of the search committee role in helping the successful candidate to integrate into
their academic unit. The OSU Office of AAEO has learned from the pilot test.





Recognizing unconscious bias during faculty searches requires significant experience.
Unconscious bias is very subtle (because it is unconscious).
Search advocates can experience significant resistance; people can become defensive when they
become aware of the potential unintentional consequences of unconscious behavior.
Search committee members are fully employed; they may resist any attempts to slow down or
further complicate the search process.
There are institutional barriers to search advocacy that need to be recognized and managed;
these institutional barriers are mostly beyond the scope of responsibility of search committee
members.
The training alone (six hours) is insufficient to prepare an individual to serve as an effective
search advocate.
A search advocacy developmental model is needed that will provide on-going support for trained search
advocates. In the beginning, a trainee may serve as an assistant to an affirmative action professional
that has primary responsibility for managing bias during the search. It may be necessary to formalize
mentoring relationships between trainees and affirmative action professionals. A successful search
advocacy training program may require the establishment and management of a community of practice
(support group) where trainees meet (face to face or on-line) to share and process their experiences and
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 16
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
receive on-going education in search advocacy. What is needed is a search advocacy training program,
an institutional commitment that goes beyond delivering a search advocacy workshop.
There are significant institutional barriers to expanding the notion of search advocacy training. Most of
our faculty and staff are fully employed. For many of us, diversifying our faculty and staff is not our
highest priority, given the competing demands for our time and attention. On the one hand, effective
search advocacy requires a lot of experience. On the other hand, faculty and staff rarely participate on
search committees. Affirmative action professionals are generally fully employed. They have limited
resources for the recruitment, training, and management of volunteer search advocates. Although we all
recognize that welcoming the next generation of Extension professionals and scholars is a very high
priority, there is little institutional reward or recognition for serving on a search committee.
An informal survey of Extension organizations in the west indicates that there is interest in SAT.
Although management of unconscious bias is often included as a component of search committee
training in the institutions we surveyed, an in-depth, skill-based workshop is needed.
The goal of this proposal is to increase access by Extension employees in the Western States to effective
affirmative search advocacy training. Our specific objectives are:
1) to develop and pilot test an affirmative action search advocacy training delivered with blended
teaching methods (face to face and web-based),
2) to establish and pilot test a community of practice (face to face and web-based) that will support
search advocacy trainees, and
3) conduct a preliminary market study to determine the market value to other institutions of higher
education and beyond of a search advocacy training and support system delivered with blended
teaching methods.
The two-year pilot test should be completed by the end of December 2011.
Objective One – Develop and pilot test an affirmative action search advocate workshop that uses a
blend of asynchronous and synchronous web-based and face to face teaching strategies
Curricular materials for Affirmative Action Search Advocate Training (AASAT) have been developed by
the OSU Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (Anne Gillies, Jennifer Almquist, Roni Sue,
and Angelo Gomez.) The six-hour workshop was pilot tested by the OSU Extension Diversity Catalyst
Team in 2008. It was refined and offered several times to OSU employees during 2009.
The WEDA two-year SAT pilot projects will involve Extension campus and county based faculty from
Oregon and one other cooperating state. Affirmative action professionals, Extension diversity specialists,
and distance education specialists from both states will work together to refine and condense the OSU
search advocate materials into modules using “best practices” for on-line asynchronous delivery. OSU
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 17
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
distance education specialists would assist us to design a blended delivery experiment which might
include:




A series of live presentation by affirmative action professionals using synchronous web-based
technologies for audience questions and answers (Adobe connect, other)
Readings, written case studies, questions and answers, and discussion using asynchronous webbased technologies (Blackboard, other)
Video recorded lectures by affirmative action professionals with questions, answers, and
discussion using asynchronous web-based technologies.
A series of small group discussion hosted by members of the Extension Diversity Catalyst Team
members and/or Extension Diversity specialists where the small groups are linked together with
affirmative action professionals for questions and answers using polycom technologies.
Objective Two – Establish and manage a support system for search advocacy trainees
We recognize that neither the six-hour Search Advocacy Workshop delivered face to face nor a search
advocacy training delivered using distance learning technologies will adequately prepare an individual to
serve as an effective search advocate on a faculty search committee. Individuals will need ongoing
support and mentoring from affirmative action professionals. During this two-year project, search
advocate trainees will enter into a mentoring relationship with an affirmative action professional. They
will be invited to join a community of practice focused on affirmative action search advocacy. The
community of practice will hold face to face or web-based meetings where trainees can share and
process experiences, address questions and concerns with affirmative action professionals, and receive
on-going training.

Community of practice “brown bag lunches” using synchronous web-based technologies for
audience questions and answers (Adobe connect, other)
Objective Three – Conduct a preliminary market survey to determine the potential demand for a
Search Advocate Workshop delivered with blended methods to institutions of higher education and
other organizations around the United States
To our knowledge, Oregon State University is unique in the development of an in depth search
committee training that specifically addresses the management of unconscious bias during the search
process. We believe that there is a market for the search advocacy training that could be delivered
effectively using blended, synchronous and asynchronous web-based technologies. During this project,
we will conduct a preliminary market study to determine, 1) what institutions around the United States
might be interested in utilizing the training, and 2) how much they might be willing to pay for such a
course.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 18
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Measurable Objectives



Working with the OSU Survey Center, we will develop a series of questionnaires using a pretest,
post test, and follow up survey. We will determine and compare knowledge and skills gained,
attitudes shifted, and behavior changes associated with search advocacy training.
Working with the appropriate Institutional Review Boards, we will test and compare the
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of trained search advocates and untrained search
committee participants.
We will conduct a brief market survey of institutions of higher education to estimate their
interest and the market value of a search advocacy training delivered using blended teaching
methods.
Pilot Test Budget
Course Design (contract with OSU Extended Campus)
Project Evaluation (contract with OSU Survey Center)
Telecommunications (adobe, black board, polycom, teleconference)
Material Costs (written training materials, postage, other)
Travel(interstate)
$10,000
2,000
5,000
3,500
2,000
Pilot Test Total
$22,500
Conclusion
We recognize that we have not, in this document, provided the Western Extension Directors Association
(WEDA) with adequate detail to make a decision about funding this proposal. Clearly, the budget is a
rough estimate. If WEDA is seriously interested in this project and would like a more detailed proposal,
we are happy to provide it.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 19
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Interim Report Appendix b:
Vacancy Announcements
Materials gathered for update on review and recommend vacancy announcement wording that
a) applies to a broad based educational background so that potential applicants do not feel they
are "ruled out", and b) that indicates a commitment to diversity that goes beyond standard Civil
Rights Act statements.
Diversity Statements - Key words/phrases summary










Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
Assure compliance with civil rights and affirmative action policies including reaching out to
underserved and underrepresented audiences
Equal opportunity/affirmative action educator and employer
Implement efforts to ensure nondiscrimination in program identification and delivery
Promote and encourage maximum participation of minorities, women and other underserved
groups
ADFA/EO/AA/Veteran’s Preference
Employment, admission, access shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, age, political belief, veterans status, sexual orientation and martial or
family status
As an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer XXX recognizes the power of diverse
community and encourages applications from individuals with varied experiences and
backgrounds.
XXX must be willing to provide organizational structure and support a variety of individuals and
groups
Implement outreach efforts to ensure nondiscrimination in program identification and delivery.
Promote and encourage participation of minorities, women and other under-served groups.
A familiarity with multi-cultural and a variety of socioeconomic audiences; an interest in working
with people from diverse backgrounds, and a commitment to the principles of diversity; an
understanding of the land-grant mission; and an appreciation for economically and ethnically
diverse rural and urban populations
Institutional Background - Key words/phrases summary











Cooperative Extension System
Land-grant System
Location: county, city, state
Year of founding as an institution
Residential instructional centers
Number and type of degrees offered
Number and types of colleges
Student population: national and
international
Research, teaching and service
Centers maintained throughout the state
Characteristics of geographic location








Natural and national parks and other scenic
attractions
Characteristics of location
socioeconomically
Characteristics of the economic base of the
community/state
Assistance provided to Native American
groups
Demographics of specific groups to be
served by position
Statewide responsibilities of candidate
Local responsibilities of candidate
Urban/rural demographics
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 20
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Desirable Candidate Characteristics - Key words/phrases summary











work well in teams
work well in multi-disciplinary teams
provide leadership in educational
programming
computer literacy
verbal & writing skills
knowledge of Hispanic culture
ability to communicate in Spanishorally/written
grantsmanship
fundraising
contracting
research skills









work well with diverse individuals
ability to work with undergraduates &
graduates
work with low income people
train/teach/events/activities
have a foundation in administration
public trainer
knowledge of Cooperative Extension &
land-grant university system
appreciation for rural agricultural
communities
organizational skills
Minimum Qualifications – Desirable parameters - Key words/phrases summary



















Work effectively with volunteers
Computer skills in both word processing
and data management
Excellent communications (oral, written,
listening and public speaking)
Excellent interpersonal skills
Self starter
Good follow-through
Ability to work with little supervision
Bachelor’s degree – associate extension
educator- instructor
Masters degree- Associate Extension
Educator-Senior Instructor
Ph.D. in field
Degree must be completed at date of hire
Good organizational structure
Recruit, teach, organize and manage
volunteers
Demonstrated skills in working with
individuals and groups
Understands different ethnic and
socioeconomic audiences
Committed to diverse voices in program
prioritization
Develops and delivers programs to both
targeted and inclusive groups
Demonstrated use of presentation
technology
Years of experience in research














Academic preparation and specific course
work
Ability to interact amicably with diverse
industry and academic colleagues
Demonstrated ability to teach college-level
courses
ABD applicants must have the degree
completed at time of employment
Plan, organize and coordinate programs
effectively
Experience with applied research
Communicate effectively via telephone and
business correspondence
Demonstrated knowledge of current
research and application
Educational skills including web-based
education technologies and group
facilitation
Ability to develop linkages and participate
in coalitions
Skill in mass media such as press releases,
newsletters, broadcasts and web
development
Valid driver’s license
Willingness to work nights, weekends,
overnight travel
Demonstrated commitment to promoting
and enhancing diversity
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 21
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Performance Appraisal
Documentation and Procedures
Interim Report Appendix c:
Working with Diverse Audiences and Diversity Issues:
Diversity should be seen as a strategic initiative, with results and outcomes, in order to be seen
as important. More than one-third of the United States population belongs to a minority
group. Being positioned in the Western region it is of particular interest to note that California
leads all states in the number of Latinos, with New Mexico having the highest percentage of
Latinos (45%). More Asians live in California than any other state with Hawaii having the
highest percentage of Asians (54%). More Pacific Islanders and Native Americans live in
California than any other state.
It is critical for Extension to maintain a culturally diverse workforce and audience in order to
succeed. Extension educators who are sensitive and knowledgeable about diversity and
multiculturalism can incorporate effective strategies into planning, developing and delivering
educations programs to serve a broad and representative audience. Leadership must establish
an image of sensitivity and acceptance to diversity and multiculturalism for Extension.
Position Descriptions:
Position descriptions lay the foundation for a position. If done correctly, they will define
performance results and expectations. The purpose behind a well-written position description
is to identify, in writing, the clear expectations of the employer so there is no question as to
what is required to succeed in a position. In order to encapsulate expectations as they change
over the course of employment it is critical that position descriptions be updated periodically.
An annual review of position descriptions should be done during the annual performance
evaluation process. The employee should be asked to assist in the updating in order to
incorporate their own thoughts and opinions of how the position may have changed and where
it possibly may be heading. This clearly defined road map to success will assist Extension
educators when it comes time for annual performance evaluations.
Performance Appraisal Documents and Procedures:
Evaluations should be performed for all employees on an annual basis. Not only does an
employee’s behavior reflect directly on their supervisor, it also can have a negative impact on
the organization as a whole if not addressed appropriately. Many land-grant universities do not
have tenure-track Extension educators. In these instances it is crucial to keep the educators
aware of their performance which will allow them to grow and succeed in their positions.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 22
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
In evaluating different land-grant institutions across the nation it became obvious that not
everyone includes diversity as an attribute to be evaluated. Those that provided information
for this report used various language and documentation. Most of these institutions provided
their supervisors with either a matrix or a guide to assist the supervisor and the employee with
not only how to determine the correct level of satisfaction but also to define the term
“diversity”.
Oregon State University
Oregon State believes the primary role of the supervisor in the performance process is that of
mentor. According to the performance evaluation form for professional faculty Inherent in
mentoring employees for quality performance is practicing and instilling appropriate values.
The following values for quality performance were listed as guidelines in the evaluation process:
Quality is foremost in all that we do; Flexibility, adaptability and continuous improvement are
essential to success; Integrity must be expressed in all that we do and say; Diversity in the
University’s culture is critical to success; Employee empowerment and recognition of
contribution results in superior performance; Every employee has a significant role in the
achievement of the University’s mission; We promote a work environment that encourages lifelong learning and development; Through effective teamwork and/or partnerships, we can
accomplish more than on our own.
Colorado State University
Colorado uses a Performance Appraisal Summary of Core Areas of Performance. Under
Program Planning, Delivery and Reporting is the diversity bench mark. Diversity is defined with
the following: Colorado State University is committed to being an inclusive organization that
promotes diversity in our workforce and in our programs. Diversity is defined as differences and
similarities among people with respect to age, education, ethnicity, family structure, gender,
geographic location, physical and mental ability, race, social and economic class, spiritual
practice and other human characteristics.
Performance scoring is based on two specific areas: Understanding of Diversity and Data
Analysis and Accountability. For an exemplary rating in the area of diversity the following
documentation for each is as follows: Understanding of Diversity – Individual leads diversity
efforts by speaking in public forums on diversity issues. Community, peers, clientele, and
administrators will acknowledge this person’s diversity contributions. Data Analysis and
Accountability – Diverse audience participation has grown as a result of a targeted educational
outreach. Supportive data is available that clearly shows that progress is being made in
broadening the reach of Cooperative Education programming in the community.
Washington State University
Washington uses a Professional Behaviors Matrix which lists Core Areas of Performance. Core
Areas include Program Planning, Program Promotion, Awareness of Diversity, Community
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 23
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Assessment, Planning and Reporting and Documentation. In order to receive an exceeds
expectation under a portion of Program Planning the individual must show that program
planning includes discussion with community members about values, beliefs and customs, and
federal, state, WSU and local policies and laws, to which Extension programming is obligated.
WSU also provides a separate section of the matrix for diversity as a whole. This section states
that Washington State University Extension is committed to being an inclusive organization that
seeks and promotes diversity in our workforce, program participants, educational partners and
program content. Diversity is define as difference and similarities among people with respect to
age, education, ethnicity, family status, gender, geographic location, physical and mental
ability, race, social and economic class, spiritual practices and other human characteristics.
Under this section the skill areas that are brought into play are Awareness of Diversity,
Community Assessment, Planning and Reporting, and Documentation. Each of these skill areas
refers to seeking out and engaging diverse participants in all areas of programming.
North Dakota State University
In North Dakota, annual field staff evaluations include the following question to ensure
diversity is included in programming: Identify ideas and strategies that have been incorporated
into, and changes made in your program efforts to address diversity in your county. Reaching
diverse audiences can include rural vs. urban groups, limited income, elderly, special needs, etc.
It can also include procedures used in your office. Provide examples of specific changes you
have made to meet diverse needs.
Michigan State University
Michigan offers a Performance Development System Guide which outlines the process for
academic staff members in Extension. The Performance Development System relies on three
steps: Performance Planning, Reflection/Progress and Summarizing/Reporting. Within the step
Performance Planning there is a basic element of the educational initiatives plan of diversity
efforts. This step reflects the Extension employee’s commitment to diversity in all factors of
educational programs.
The area within the evaluation is listed as Diversity and Multiculturalism, Civil Rights which is
defined as Workforce and audience diversity and multiculturalism are paramount to Extension’s
survival and success. Extension educators who are sensitive and knowledgeable about diversity
and multiculturalism can incorporate effective strategies into planning, developing and
delivering educational programs to serve a broad and representative audience. Extension
educators can also assist underserved groups, access educational services and sensitize others
for more inclusive, anti-discriminatory practices.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 24
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
University of California
Cooperative Extension in California does not have tenure as county-based academics but the
promotion/tenure process is parallel to the campus model for tenured faculty. The annual
evaluation is completed on the years where a merit/promotion is not sought, which is every
two or three years depending on rank (assistant/associate every 2 years and full title every 3
years). Within the evaluation template is a narrative section for general performance and
accomplishments which includes Affirmative Action defined as affirmative action outreach and
accomplishments. Another section is devoted to Professional Competence and Activity in which
activities are listed that have been undertaken to improve professional competence.
University of Tennessee
A professional development plan is developed within the first year of employment at
Tennessee. The plan is evaluated yearly and discussed in conjunction with the annual
performance evaluation to ensure that updates and revisions are included. This plan is a
required for all Extension staff and is also a required component of promotion packets.
Tennessee offers a guide entitled Professional Growth: A workbook for planning professional
growth.
Diversity is a key component of the Performance Review Detail Form at the University of
Tennessee under Service and Relationships. Diversity it defined as the extent to which the
employee fosters positive working relationships in a diverse workplace.
Cornell University
Cornell uses performance appraisal tools developed by Cornell University. In order to assist
leadership not only with performing annual evaluations, the tools developed include a long
version that provides interview questions that suit the specific skill area. This allows a proactive
search for prospective candidates that fit the culture of Cooperative Extension. The specific
skill that pertains to diversity is “inclusiveness” and is defined as having examples of behavior
that: shows respect for differences in backgrounds, lifestyles, viewpoints and needs, with regard
to ethnicity, gender, creed and sexual orientation; promotes cooperation and a welcoming
environment for all; works to understand the perspectives brought by all individuals; pursues
knowledge of diversity and inclusiveness.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 25
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
WEDA Navigating Difference
Distance Delivery Proposal
Interim Report Appendix d:
Situation:
WSUE developed a 5 module curriculum, Navigating Difference, to teach cultural competencies.
Currently the only delivery format is face to face. WEDA requested a proposal to design a distance
delivery option to facilitate access to the training.
Inputs:
Currently available:
 Navigating Difference (ND) Curriculum
based on the WSUE Cultural
Competencies (see attached).
 Evaluation results
 ND program developers
Needed:
Funding for:
 ½ time course designer for 6 months
 ¼ time distance learning specialist for 6
months
 Trainer fees for Pilot training
Outputs:



Redesign the Navigating Difference curriculum for distance delivery
Pilot Training:
o Recruit participants from 2 -3 states
o Set up sites for distance delivery
o Assign certified ND trainers to each delivery site
o Conduct training which includes:
 4– 3 hour video conferences
 2 – 3 one hour webinars
 Readings
 Application activities to be done between learning sessions
Evaluate effectiveness of distance delivery option in terms of participant outcomes and cost of
delivery.
Outcomes: More extension professionals in the Western Region gain the skills necessary to be
culturally competent.
Submitted by: Mary Katherine Deen, WSU; Daniel McGrath, OSU; Louise Parker, WSU
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 26
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
Cultural Competencies for Washington
State University Extension
Interim Report Appendix e:
Washington State University Extension is committed to being an inclusive organization that seeks
and promotes diversity in our workforce, program participants, educational partners, and program
content. (WSUE Professional Behavior Matrix Adopted September, 2003)
Core Principle:
As a means of achieving the Extension vision, we serve the residents of Washington with culturally
competent and linguistically appropriate programming and services.
Key Definitions:
Diversity:
Our differences are expressed in many ways including race, sex, age, physical and mental ability,
sexual orientation, religion, class, philosophy and culture. (WSU Strategic Plan – 2008)
Culture:
A socially transmitted worldview learned and shared by a group which influences values, beliefs,
customs and behaviors and which is reflected in their language, material culture, food, and social
institutions. (Andrews & Boyle, 1999; Axelson, 1993; Burchum, 2002; Leininger, 1991, 1995; Mead, 1955;
Pauwels, 1995; Purnell & Paulanka, 1998; Salmond, 2000; Schriver, 1995).
Cultural competence:
“A set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or
among professionals that enables effective work in cross-cultural situations. Competence, in
particular, implies having the capacity to function effectively as an individual and an organization
within the context of the cultural beliefs, behaviors, and needs presented by [participants] in their
communities.” (Adapted from Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989).
Culturally competent programs and services:
Extension programs and services which are respectful of and responsive to the cultural needs of
partners. (Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health, 2001)
Cultural Competencies for Extension Professionals
Competency: Cultural Awareness
Skill Set




Explore personal and cultural values, biases, prejudices and views.
Identify ways in which culture shapes beliefs, practices, and values.
Identify similarities and differences among cultures.
Recognize his/her own culture(s), including Extension culture.
Competency: Cultural Understanding
Skill Set
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 27
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010



Understand the developmental nature of cultural competencies.
Describe issues and concerns which arise when values, beliefs, and practices differ from
those of the dominant culture.
Recognize ways culture affects participation in Extension programs and services.
Competency: Cultural Knowledge
Skill Set



Develop familiarity with specific cultures, with an emphasis on the diverse audiences in
your geographic area.
Use conceptual and theoretical models for understanding human culture especially the
ways in which they differ from one’s own.
Identify appropriate cultural guides and build productive relationships with them.
Competency: Cultural Interaction
Skill Set





Recognize factors impacting successful intercultural communication.
Use concepts and theories of intercultural communication.
Manage intercultural conflicts effectively.
Interact productively and seek input and guidance from cultural partners.
Form new programmatic partnerships across intercultural differences.
Competency: Cultural Sensitivity
Skill Set


Identify historical and sociological influences on specific cultural interactions.
Recognize the impact of privilege, inequality and oppression in daily contexts.
OUTCOMES FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCIES
CULTURALLY COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS:



Engage in culturally diverse settings, initiatives and programs.
Integrate cultural competencies in the planning, implementation and evaluation of
programming.
Practice strategies for successful intercultural communication in professional settings.
These cultural competencies were developed by Dr. Melynda Huskey, Assistant Vice-President for
Research in the WSU Office of Equity and Diversity; Dr. Mary Katherine Y. Deen, WSU Extension
Diversity Director; and Dr. Louise Parker, WSU Extension Director of Family Programs.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 28
WEDA Diversity Catalyst Team (DCT) Report for Directors
April 2010
References:
Andrews, M.M., & Boyle, J.S. (1999). Transcultural concepts in nursing care (3rd ed.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and skills needed by speechlanguage pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services.
ASHA Supplement 24, in press.
Axelson, J.A. (1993). Counseling and development in a multicultural society (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Burchum, J.L.R. (2002). Cultural competence: An evolutionary perspective. Nursing Forum 37: 4, 515.
Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., and Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center.
Leininger, M.M. (1991). Culture, care, diversity & universality: A theory for nursing. New York:
National League for Nursing.
Leininger, M.M. (1995). Transcultural nursing: Concepts, theories, research and practices (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mead, M. (1955). Cultural patterns and technical change. New York: New American Library.
Pauwels, A. (1995). Cross-cultural communication in the health sciences: Communicating with
migrant patients. South Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.
Purnell, L.D. & Paulanka, B.J. (1998). Transcultural health care: A culturally competent approach.
Philadelphia: Davis.
Salmond, S.S. (2000). Culture learning and unlearning: Creating a culture supporting the
development of transcultural nurse managers. In M.L. Kelley & V.M. Fitzsimons (Eds.),
Understanding cultural diversity: Culture, curriculum, and community in nursing (pp. 149-160).
Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Schriver, J.M. (1995). Human behavior and the social environment: Shifting paradigms in essential
knowledge for social work practice. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health (2001). National
Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care. Washington, D.C.
Charity Buchert, Jan Carroll (co-facilitating), Jim Christenson, Mary Katherine Deen, Dallas Holmes, Linda
Manton, Dan McGrath (co-facilitating), Scott Reed, John Winder. Ex officio: Charlotte Eberlein & Lyla Houglum
Page 29